User talk:Robbie SWE

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including, there is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • The FAQ aim to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Nadando 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Hi Robbie I put up the edit earlier on astroanthropology. I have never put anything on wiki before and I was doing it from my iPhone awkward. It said I did something wrong and that my edit may get kicked out. How do I correct that. I will read about how to properly edit later. Or maybe you can help. Thanks Rob👍🏻



Hello Robbie, I'm bothering you for a personal translation request:) My friend's going to get a tattoo and he asked me of which language he should have it. Can you please tell me what "she exists as long as her presence is felt" means in Romanian and Swedish? I don't want it to sound stupid as he'll have it forever; so if you have a better idea to translate with a similar meaning, I'd appreciate that :) Thank you so much in advance! Sinek 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much for your friendly response and for your translations! That really helped but.. It's a bit longer than we expected; it means more pain and more money :D To ask you for your personal oppinion, what would you advise? Something a bit shorter, like "feeling perpetuates her" or anything else you'd like. Am I being too much? :D Sorry for bothering you, and waitin for your answer. Cheers! Sinek 21:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hii! How is it goin? Well I want to thank you for your helps once again, and tell you what happened. My friend chose a Latin translation and we were at the tattoo shop with all translations I found. There was a girl with her boyfriend and they looked at the translations, then suddenly made up their mind! Her boyfriend got "Hon är alltid med mig" and she got "Imortală în sufletul meu". Not my friend, but other two guys will carry your translations forever :) Sinek 09:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a proper translation. Ronald E. Kaszuk (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ett verb[edit]

Har du lust att bidra med synpunkter i raderingsdiskussionen om verbformen göro, tack? --LA2 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

commas and cedillas[edit]

Hello. If you ever want help to move Romanian entries from cedillas to commas in ro.wiktionary, let me know. I've got a script that can do the job. --flyax 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

See ro:Utilizator:Flyax/categories. It's not a great "lesson", anyhow have a look. --flyax 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I'm wiliing to help. Here are my thoughts. First we have to find all Romanian entries with a t/s cedilla. That's easy (see the instructions on my ro.wikt page). Then we have to exclude the entries that have a second language section, i.e. Turkish. I don't know if there are other languages using these t/s cedilla characters, so I'll need your help in that. If Turkish is the only language we have to take care about, then this step is also quite simple and we can proceed to renaming all Romanian entries by bot.

The final step is to change each and every instance of t/s cedilla in the entries' body. That will be a bit more tricky because we'll have to exclude again any Turkish (or other as well?) words, existing let's say in translations or etymologies. This is something that may need to wait a bit - we wouldn't want to mess entries up. But I think we'll find a solution. So, what do you think? Do you want me to go on with movings entries for now and wait for the rest? --flyax 13:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!
Turkish is the only language that uses a s cedilla (Romanian was the only language using a t cedilla). I can recall boş and şah as being the only shared entries with Turkish.
I think you can go ahead and start moving entries on the condition that they remain as redirects (I would also like to explore the possibility of creating a robot that automatically creates cedilla redirects every time an article containing the new letters is created).
I'm concerned about the necessary changes to entries' body: it has to be done but I don't know how to do it. Even articles in other languages containing Romanian translations have to be dealt with.
Let me know what I can do!
Best Regards --Robbie SWE 13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I think that by Friday I'll be ready to move (rename) the Romanian entries. I suggest that from now on we continue our discussion on ro.wikt. I' ll take the liberty to copy these messages there, on my discussion page. --flyax 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


I know we had talked about him before and I was supposed to be watching his edits, which I did a bit... but the sânt thing was just too much for even me, so I blocked him for 6 months. So that'll be at least a break from his viral editing. :) OH, daca nu ma recunosti, sunt Opiaterein :D Numele e nou. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi (Dick)Laurent! Yes, I remember you (an intelligent and hardworking linguist is never forgotten ;-) and thank you for blocking BaicanXXX. I've been keeping him under daily surveillance, but I just kind of stopped bothering to change his incorrect edits (there are far too many). However, the "sânt" thing really p****d me off, because it has never been correct, ever (sînt; yeah...ok, not my cup of tea but still alright; sunt...definitely!). Take care :-) --Robbie SWE 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Salut! I wanted to be sure you spotted this discussion, in case you wanted to comment on whether User:Torvalu4 is correct that many Romanian words are from Albanian, or whether he is pushing some POV. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender of audio in Romanian[edit]

What is the gender of this word? The translation table said it was "m f n" which seemed like a mistake to me. —CodeCat 17:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Actually it is an invariable adjective so it is not declined. I guess the person who added it meant that it is "audio" across genders. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. —CodeCat 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


Pot deveni tău amic? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your request? --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I be your friend? --Æ&Œ (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Aren't we all friends on Wiktionary? ;-) (PS: just to help you with your Romanian: it should be "pot deveni amicul tău?") --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you get my next message? --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you double‐check this? --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems alright to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Cum se spune «I can speak Romanian» în română? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, what's the plural form of that Romanian demonym? I wasn't too sure about it. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll go back and add the correct forms. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Now, for the plural form of Romanian nauruan. Besides, the feminine parameter doesn't seem to work unless I add the plural form, apparently. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC) want me to check it and add the feminine plural? --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. I mean, the feminine form doesn't display unless the plural is entered. All I did was to make a guess. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do so. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the plural form of niuean? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It's niueni and I added it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Missing Romanian plurals[edit]

Hi Robbie. In case you're interested in Romanian plurals, I recently made a category of Romanian entries missing plurals. Perhaps you could check some, and if you have time you could create the plurals (WT:ACCEL is a good tool for doing this). --Type56op9 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the initiative! I'm gonna take a look and contribute when I'll have the time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking up on BAICAN XXX[edit]

He's been contributing more after his warning. It all looks good to me, but I know next to no Romanian, so I'd appreciate if you could check his edits as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've checked yesterday's translations and most were ok. But I don't get Baican's sudden "love" for diminutives and plurals - he added quite a few and he doesn't provide any additional information such as etymology, pronunciation, inflection or what they actually mean. For instance perniță means (1) cushion, (2) pinball, pincushion, (3) hassock, (4) shoulder pad etc. In Baican's latest contributions he includes pronunciation templates but doesn't actually provide IPA or SAMPA pronunciations. Doesn't that mess up the categories - words lacking pronunciation appear as if they do? --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

victorie a la Pyrrhus[edit]

Eu stau și mă mir cu ce nonșalanță faci tu uz de verificabilitatea modului corect de scriere de la ro.Wikipediaǃ ... Doar dacă mă gândesc că pe acolo se mișcă în voie de vreo câteva luni bune un agramat ca userul Andrei Bacria, mă umflă râsul despre această verificabilitate, des invocată de tine, privind ro.W.BAICAN XXX (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"I'm wondering, with what nonchalance you rely on the verifiability of the correct way of writing on ro.Wikipedia! ... Just when I start to think, that around there for the last couple of months, the ignorant user Andrei Bacria has been lurking, I start to laugh at this verifiability, often invoked by you, in relation to ro.Wikipedia"
(Translation for those who are interested) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Is there a problem with the word?

Jdogno2 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jdogno2! No, there's no problem with the word. I was a bit concerned, because the hits I got on Google weren't convincing enough. However, a fellow user has provided citations, so I apologise for my disbelief. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Just curious, but what was the problem with that etymology? That's basically what the Trésor de la Langue Française says, and it's linked to it at the bottom. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that @Word dewd544! My mouse is on the fritz and it sometimes registers a click even when none was made – the registered click just happened to revert your edit. So your contribution was fine, it was just a hardware malfunction on my side. Promise it won't happen again :-) Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Why did you remove the link to ustensila? Linking to empty pages is a common practice here. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked if ustensila exists in any other language, but couldn't find an example, so I figured that it wouldn't hurt if I erased it. If I acted against a policy I'm unaware of, I can add it again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
But it’s used in Romanian. Is that inadequate? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I contemplated the inflected form, however, that would be a hell of an undertaking, adding the articulate form wherever it coincides with the main article. E.g. consider coapsă, boacă, moacă, lipsă etc. they're definitely unique Romanian words – should we include the inflected forms as a "see also" if they still lead the reader to the same initial article? As long as there is no rule about it, I thought it better to avoid that discussion. But as I said earlier, I don't mind adding it again as long as it serves a purpose. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don’t think that there’s an urgency to add them all, so nobody should feel forced to make all of those links. (An automaton would be more appropriate for that task.) Some entries like cliche and Æsop contain redirections even though the definitions have the exact same links, and people seem fine with them. @-sche, do you have any comments? --Romanophile (contributions) 17:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no harm in linking to inflected/alternative forms that just lead the reader back to the initial page, or that are linked-to on the definition line or in the inflection table. It's also not a high priority. I wouldn't remove existing links, but I wouldn't normally bother to add them in cases like this, either. Hypothetically, things like ustensila or Æsop might be words in other languages, in which cases the links would be useful. - -sche (discuss) 23:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Then I'll put it back. Thank you for your input! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Does this mean something like ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’ in Romanian? Because that’s what I’m inferring from the 2nd definition here. --Romanophile (contributions) 10:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're kind of right – it is used as a term of endearment, but it's much stronger than ‘sweetheart’ or ‘dear’. If we take a look at the English definition of life, we find:
"7. Something which is inherently part of a person's existence, such as job, family, a loved one, etc."
She's my love, my life.‎
That's pretty much the connotation in Romanian too. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah! It looks like I was 90% accurate. I myself don’t usually see life used in that sense, which is why my guess was imperfect. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated: do you know how to say solēre in Romanian? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends which meaning you're after:
Hope this information was helpful. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is elevator a good synonym of ascensor? --Romanophile (contributions) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, their function is basically the same; to transport heavy loads vertically. However, looking at the definitions in my dictionaries, elevator ([1]) was never mentioned to transport people, only heavy materials or goods in construction sites, harbours, train stations, etc. Ascensor ([2]) is used for both people and goods in high-rises. Then yet again, I personally use lift ([3]) which designates your run-of-the-mill elevator for people (from 3+ people). Hope this helped! --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Your feedback is strengthening Wikcionario. I decided to add elevator as a hyponym here, which seems like a good fit to me. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is really weird. I could have sworn that I made the Spanish entry for viață a few days ago, but I looked around on the project and found no traces of the entry. There was no copy of it on my hard‐drive either. I think that somehow my brain tricked me into thinking that I had created the entry when I never did. Probably a side‐effect from undersleeping. Anyway, here’s the Spanish version. I know that your Spanish is basic, but it might still be interesting to look at. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

To be completely honest, my Spanish is much better than I give it credit :-) I took a look at the entry and it seems ok, just did some minor corrections to the expressions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Does însemna conjugate differently depending on the meaning? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile Yes, you're right. When the sense is "to mean, to signify", the verb "a însemna" takes the first declension table (eu însemn, el/ea înseamnă etc.), while it takes the second declension table (eu însemnez, el/ea însemnează etc.) when the sense is "to mark, to note". I suspect it has to do with the etymology – while the English article only mentions a Latin etymology, which definitely is true for the first meaning, DEX also mentions în + semn as an alternative to what I believe to be the second sense. I believe it to be a plausible explanation for the second declension. Hope this helped, don't hesitate to contact me again if anything is unclear. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[4], is the declension correct? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile looks fine. However, historically, the term has been interpreted as being neuter, therefore resulting in a plural form ending in -e. Don't have a more reliable source than Scriban (1939) though. Considering that the neuter is considered archaic, I wouldn't be all too worried about it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you know any synonyms for ferăstrău? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile first and foremost we have the variants ferestrău, fierăstrău and herăstrău. As for synonyms, we have a couple of (very) regional words: chimilioară, corzar and firez/firiz (source). --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There’s also șegă, but are any of these CFI‐compliant? --Romanophile (contributions) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, never heard of șegă before, so thank you for introducing it! The variants are CFI-compliant and I think the synonyms are too. However, I can't provide any citations for the regionalisms because they're not a part of a day-to-day Romanian vocabulary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to mention this to you earlier, but I di’n’t remember until I had a dream about it. When people misspell words, it helps me find obsolete spellings in other languages, such as this one, so please never learn how to spell perfectly or else I’ll run out of work to do. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are degustare, degustație, gustare, savurare all synonyms (to you)? --Romanophile (contributions) 18:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that degustare, degustație and savurare are synonyms (DEX backs me up on this). However, I wouldn't consider gustare as a synonym mainly because it also means "entrée", "snack" and "gustation". --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

[5]. Perfect? --Romanophile (contributions) 22:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile A-okay! I would however also add închide. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Romanian Rhymes[edit]

@Robbie SWE, can you give an example of some incorrect rhymes that he added? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
BAICAN XXX (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexico City, Merseburger etc.[edit]

You're in error.

- 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

According to German Wikipedia ([6]), only Mexiko-Stadt is accepted. Unless you can provide a trustworthy source to back up your allegation that I am in the wrong, your edit will be reverted. Concerning Merseburger; since Merseburgerin implies a woman from Merseburg, it is necessary to underline this differentiation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
WP is not a reliable source, supports my statement (seeärung) ), and I can give a reliable source, namely .
Anyway, "Merseburger" is not restricted to males, which is true for many words in -er, while the word with -in is restricted to females. Of course, in the context the basic form is often used to refer to males while the form with -in is used for females (as in "Zuschauer und Zuschauerinnen"), but it's also quite common to use the normal form for both (as "Zuschauer" meaning "männliche und weibliche Zuschauer"). E.g. one can search for "-er beiderlei Geschlechts", "weibliche -er", "männliche und weibliche -er" etc. and quite often one can find results which without a doubt proof that the basic form in -er is used sexus-neutral.
I'm currently looking at the Begriffsklärung and it implicitly says "Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos" so it isn't confused with "Mexiko, ein nordamerikanischer Staat". That's the reason why "city" is added - to avoid confussion. When it comes to Merseburger I understand that it can be used to mean "a person from Merseburg". However, I strongly oppose deleting the differentiation altogether, because it exists throughout the category of German demonyms. Last but not least, for future reference, please discuss problems you have with other users before you go alleging that they are vandals. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The "Begriffserkärung" states: "Mexiko als Name steht für [...] Mexiko-Stadt, die Hauptstadt Mexikos". That is, "Mexiko" refers to the city too. Anyway, WP is not a reliable source. Duden instead is a reliable, but prescriptive, source. While it should be true, that the city nowaydays is often called "Mexiko-Stadt" to avoid confusion, "Mexiko" also refers to the city, especially in older sources.
So you see that terms in -er are used sexus-neutral. Thus the restriction with "male" is incorrect. Well, there could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person".
I tried to discuss it, while you didn't even give reasons for you reverts, and you didn't try to talk to me. Also unreasoned reverts IMHO are very impolite.
- 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I happen to agree with the anon. "Merseburger" can either refer to a person of unspecified gender, or specifically to a male, while "Merseburgerin" refers only specifically to a female. Stating that "Merseburger" is a "male from Merseburg" does not account for the "person of unspecified gender". --WikiTiki89 21:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent. Impolite or not, it's quite clear in the edit summary "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". You didn't do that; you just remade your edits, forcing me to undo them. Impolite or not, I'm never closed to discussing my edits, but you didn't follow protocol. Believe it or not I agree with you in several aspects, however, the way you went about doing these changes leaves a lot to wish for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to keep Wiktionary consistent." - 1. It's not consistend anyway. 2. It's not becoming consistend when you add "male". It's even more consistend without "male".
"the edit summary" and "You didn't do that" etc.: 1. That seems like an automatic comment, so it seemed to be dishonest. 2. I did do that. Though not at first (see above). 3. Anyway, you could have given a reason in the edit summaries, especially when re-reverting.
"you didn't follow protocol" - might be true, if I don't know the protocol, it's hard to follow it.
"leaves a lot to wish for" - might be true, but same is true for you too. Examples: (a) You could have given reasons, especially when re-reverting or even re-re-reverting. (b) You could have tried to talk to me too. (c) Instead of the automatic comment - which seemed to be dishonest -, you could have used a real comment.
""Mexicopolis" is the prefered form in Latin" - That's unlikely. googleing for "Mexicopolis" only gives a few results. "Mexicum" instead is quite common - especially in older source, that is, when Latin was more common. Of course, "Mexicum" for the city could have been more popular back then as the country was a part of Spain.
"male person" - That's still incorrect, and you even said that you know it's incorrect. Again: "[T]here could be other ways how to define it, like "1. a person, especially a male" or "1. person; 2. especially a male person". That would be correct too and not incorrect. I don't care whether or not it changed this way, but I'm strongly against your incorrect "male person"."
Labeling German "Mexiko" dated: Duden doesn't support that and Wikipedia doesn't support that too. Thus, it's unsourced. Also I doubt that it's dated. When the context is clear (like one is talking about cities or Mexico City or one is talking about historical situations), it should still be ok to just use "Mexiko".
- 21:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC), 21:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a valid source at all. As for Duden, it is a secondary source. We only accept primary sources as evidence (much unlike Wikipedia), unless it is something that is difficult to find evidence for. To find a primary source, search Google Books for quotations using the word. --WikiTiki89 22:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, "dated" is a statement. Statements needs be sourced. Thus, he should have to proof that it's dated.
As for counter-proving:"Stadt+Mexiko" from 2012 or 2003 (could be a quote) has "Mitte der Stadt Mexiko","Stadt+Mexiko" from 2016 (according to google) has "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." Thus "Mexiko" still refers to the city, (especially) when the context is clear. Also, though just for clarification, "Stadt Mexiko" is not a name per se, and one can also find "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Die Stadt Marburg zählt um die 70.000 Einwohner" etc. - 22:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where your experience lies, whether it's with Wikipedia or with German Wiktionary or whatever, but you should know that at English Wiktionary, we have our own rules. If you want to say it's not dated, please prove it with direct quotations that use the word, not with citations of other sources. --WikiTiki89 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The google book results above should count as quotations of uses. In case of"Stadt+Mexiko" with "Man kennt das Land Mexiko nicht, wenn man die Stadt Mexiko nicht besucht hat." it's undoubtful. As for"Stadt+Mexiko" , the book (from 2012) quoted the title of another work (from 2003). In case of the other work it's a usage too. Do you want to say that a title doesn't qualify as usage? Even if titles don't qualify, one can find many more results from the 21st century."Stadt+Mexiko" ("der Stadt Mexiko", 2009),"Stadt+Mexiko" ("der heutigen Stadt Mexiko", 2011 according to google),"Mexiko+eine+Stadt" ("Mexiko eine Stadt der Spaziergänger", 2003, though could be a quote from another work from the 20th or 21st century). In fact, "Stadt Mexiko" (similiar to "Stadt London", "Stadt Berlin", "Stadt Marburg", ...) should even be prefered over "Stadt Mexiko-Stadt". - 23:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty good evidence. I just somehow managed to skip that part of your previous post. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


To prevent further unreasend reverts by you:

  • e.g. "Anglokanadierin" is either derived from "Anglokanadier" or from "Kanadierin", but not from Kanadier.
  • it doesn't make sense to collect all words with -kanad- as releted terms. Terms with -kanada- rather belong to Kanada and terms with -kanadisch- rather belong to kanadisch. Maybe you can take a look at other entries, there's done this way, too.

- 20:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lame Reversion[edit]

"Referring to a person without a disability as “lame” is offensive to many as it suggests a derogatory characterization of the physical condition from which the term was derived."

Regarding the change I made from "many" to "some" and your subsequent reversion. I can't think of any way of proving that usage is considered offensive to many and my personal experience would suggest it's not true, that it's not many but a very small minority of people who find it offensive. On the other hand it's very easy to prove that it is considered offensive by some. Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Let me ask you this instead: do you have substantial "proof" supporting your subjective personal experience? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, that's exactly the point I was trying to make. My belief is as subjective as yours. It can't be proven either way that "many" people find the usage offensive without a substantial amount of research. I was hoping you'd either point me in the direction of research proving that many people find that usage of "lame" offensive or allow me to change the sentence from an unsubstantiated assertion to one which is easily proven. Let me ask again: Do you have proof that the usage is considered offensive by a substantial number of people? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Here's the thing, getting hung up on semantics – some, a few, many, a lot of etc. – is deflecting attention away from real issues: people habitually and callously using terms considered derogatory by people with disabilities. Do I have proof? No, unfortunately I haven't been able to find an empirical study dealing with this subject (not entirely sure if such a study is necessary though, I mean, do we need a study to confirm that a majority of people of African-American descent consider the N-word derogatory for it to be a fact?). However, you just have to search for "lame" and "offensive term" and you'll find some 400,000+ hits, quite a few of them linking to blog posts from people with disabilities, where they talk about how they feel when the word lame is used in everyday speech. To be completely blunt, as a rollbacker who keeps a close eye on anon edits, any arbitrary change which doesn't substantially improve an article, gets reverted. It's not personal; it's just us trying to maintain a form of consistency around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I remain a sceptic, and totally reject the equivalence with "nigger". Keep up the good work! —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

If I may butt in, in my personal experience, I've never heard of anyone being offended by the word "lame". It's too pervasive of a word; and it's its use for people who actually have a disability is nowadays a bit old-fashioned. As for the words "some" and "many", these are weasel words used to convey their users' personal impression when the facts are unknown (I'm pointing out the problem, yet I know of no good solution). --WikiTiki89 14:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for butting in! I take your point on weasel words, at very least this is a controversial statement which raises a lot of interesting questions though I'm not sure if this is the best forum to discuss them. I'd never heard of anyone being offended by "lame" until last week, it puzzled me and that's how I found my way here. I wanted to tone that statement somewhat without diving headfirst into what Robbie calls the "real issues", but I can see that was naive. What it really comes down to is two competing subjectives, and as I can't even be bothered to register an account I can see why his should prevail. For the record: I do believe that "lame" is offensive to some for the reasons given, I don't believe it is offensive to "many" because in my experience the term is not used "habitually and callously" and (crucially) isn't taken that way in most cases. I found the comparison with "nigger" especially misleading, a word that's totally rotten to the core.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Japanese 適切な[edit]

Hi, You erased this compound, butiIt is often used. Shiromura Nekomao (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Shiromura Nekomao! Can you please show me where I made this edit? Can't seem to find it in my list of contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Is macaronar a slur, or is it just informal? --Romanophile (contributions) 20:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile DEX lists it as colloquial. However, the term does convey a depreciative tone. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know other synonyms for Italians? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile Let's see...if we set macaronar aside, which is popular albeit somewhat depreciative, we have an archaic ital, regional and archaic talian and of course broscar (N.B. slang and pejorative) – funny fact, Romanians believe that it is in fact the Italians who are the true frogeaters, and not necessarily the French (although they might also be frog-loving people). --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you delete my adding informations ?[edit]

Why are you delete my adding informations ?

Because it's promotional material. Don't forget that Wiktionary is a virtual dictionary; we're neither Wikipedia nor LinkedIn. Please read this before redoing your changes, which I guarantee you will be reverted, by me or some other user/admin. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just saying hi[edit]

😂😂 LMAO at whoever who added this to to hacker:

{ ThIs GoEs OuT 2 aLl ThE nIgGaS tHaT bE fLeXiN oN tHeIr RoOtEd IsP tHaT aRe CoNnEcTeD tO mY nEt ! ! ! }

Amin wordie (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

False Northing [edit]

False Northing Your rollback to the incorrect definition of False Northing is in error. It is the same/common error propagated throughout the internet ( I'm assuming someone got it wrong once and it just kept getting reused and reposted ). The definition as defined with the rollback will not produce the correct values. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not contesting the validity of your contribution. However, you provided no sources whatsoever and your definition was overly complicated, not to mention that it was too long. Please remember that Wiktionary is a dictionary, not an encyclopaedia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your rollback is error![edit]

anser 10:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no English entry for anser as a misspelling of answer. That's the reason why I reverted your change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I requested a new entry here

and you reverted the request. Why? The word is in a recently published book and I gave the context for it. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Hi! I apologise for annulling the entry you added – I only saw the "uT". I added the entries again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Your rollback is in error. Granted, it's a somewhat dated meaning, but that is all. I'm afraid I do not have the experience to properly create a new entry for the term 'fout in de oorlog', but you might want to read w:nl:Goed en fout in de Tweede Wereldoorlog as an introduction, before deciding whether or not to revert the change again. Thank you! 11:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The reasons why I reverted your edit were (a) it wasn't properly formatted; (b) it was in Dutch which makes it inappropriate to have in the definitions section, and (c) it was most likely an expression and/or example, not a definition. Please read our guidelines before contributing. Evidently, I wasn't the only one who thought your edit was an error – it has since then been reverted by an administrator. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your rollback is in error[edit]

Your rollbacks here and here are indeed in error. "Unit trust" is a term that is found in other dictionaries too, and has a Wikipedia page. -- 07:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! I apologise, I'll add the info again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"fariseu" and "ferice"[edit]

I added the Romanian term fariseu and slightly edited ferice. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Lo Ximiendo! Took a look and they look great. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


You're not an admin on en.wikt, are you? Would you be interested? You seem to revert a lot of vandalism. Equinox 20:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Shucks, I'm flattered. I am interested, but I'm still learning how things work around here so I would like to remain a patroller a little while longer. Can I take a rain check? Thanks though! --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
How about now? You {{speedy}} a lot of entries that you might as well delete yourself.__Gamren (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gamren It does imply a vote I guess? Well, I've become more experienced, so maybe the stars align this time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it does. You may accept here. I am asked to remind you to specify your time zone (I'm leaving this in English so others will know they don't have to). I am further told to inform you that you have until midnight to accept (although if you don't make it, it's no big deal)__Gamren (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Gamren! I accepted your nomination. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the confidence! A special thank you to @Gamren who nominated me :-D I'll do my best and please let me know if there's anything in my conduct that I have to improve on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Så lidt. Jeg så forresten i en bog, at det svenske ord for gruppe er grupp, således også gruppanalys, gruppegenskap osv., men gruppeparameter bliver til grupparameter. Har svensk en regel imod tre på hinanden følgende ens konsonanter?__Gamren (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hej @Gamren! Väldigt intressant iakttagelse! Du har helt rätt – en svensk skrivregel statuerar att man inte får ha tre konsonanter på rad i sammansättningar. Detta medför att vi helt enkelt tar bort en konsonant, t.ex. nattåg (natt + tåg), äggula (ägg + gula), glasstrut (glass + strut), mässkjorta (mäss + skjorta) o.s.v. Men det finns ett undantag – avstavning. Syftet med avstavningar är att dela upp ord ifall de exempelvis inte får plats på en rad. Om det finns en risk för att ordet skulle kunna misstolkas så lägger man till den borttagna konsonanten. T.ex. glasskål (glass + skål) blir glass-skål för att inte blandas ihop med glasskål (glas + skål). Ursäkta denna långa utläggning :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Det skal du endelig ikke undskylde for, det er skam interessant at se lighederne og forskellene mellem så tætte sprog. Bindestreger bruger vi ikke så meget på dansk. Skaber det ikke problemer i tekstbehandlingsprogrammer der deler ord op ved linjeskift, eller er de smarte nok til at genindsætte bogstavet? For et program behøver jo, for overhovedet at kunne dele meningsfuldt, kende de ord den behandler. Selv foretrækker jeg helt at slå orddeling fra.
Problematikken med tredobbeltkonsonanter eksisterer ikke rigtig på dansk, da vi kun undtagelsesvis (primært i proprier og låneord som gløgg, stress, knarr) tillader ikke-intervokaliske dobbeltkonsonanter (hvilket inkluderer ordinitial og ordfinal position).__Gamren (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Visst är det för många förundransvärt att våra språk är så sammankopplade, och ändå så skilda från varandra :-) Hmmm...jag har faktiskt aldrig stött på problem i de olika ordbehandlingsprogrammen eller de lite mer avancerade editeringsprogrammen som jag använder dagligen. Har man en svensk version, borde det funka utan problem. Men det händer så klart att man tvingas göra manuella ändringar. När det kommer till bindestreck skulle jag vilja säga att vi har märkt begynnelsen till en revival – bindestreck har börjat användas allt oftare främst i samband med utländska ord, såsom YouTube-kanal, H&M-reklam, o.s.v. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


FYI, {{t-}} is actually long-deprecated; it's been a redirect to {{t}} for almost three years now, aside from a four-month period when it was simply deleted. —RuakhTALK 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Ruakh, but I haven't deliberately used it. Have I? --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, at fracture?diff=40546283. Not a big deal, though. —RuakhTALK 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I see! Thanks for pointing that out. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Why did you cancelled my edit? Austrian means a supporter of Austrian economics, an Academician or a layman.-- 14:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. For starters, the edit seemed unlikely considering the second definition ("Just a person supporting the Austrian school") which is not something you'd expect to find in a dictionary. The wording was just off and the capitalisation was incorrect (it's called the Austrian School). But I see what you were trying to convey, so I'll add a definition which works out. I encourage you to read our guidelines before contributing again. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


That word is more informal conversation than charla, chamuyo and lata are both lunfardo. Greetings. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The reason I reverted your edit was because you didn't follow translation guidelines. Please don't add plain text in the translation section. Please read our guidelines before adding new translations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Swedish false cognates and false friends with Danish[edit]

Hej Robbie SWE,

Vil du verificere dette? På forhånd tak.__Gamren (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hej @Gamren! Tack för dina bidrag till listan! Jag har gjort väldigt små justeringar, måste dock erkänna att jag aldrig hade hört talas om blåmåndag. Men du vet vad man säger – man lär sig något nytt varje dag :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Tusind tak!__Gamren (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I think your rollback is in error[edit]

Hello, I recently edited the folk page and added an Etymology 2 with a source. Just wanted to know why you reverted it. THANKS 19:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The source you added did not sustain your affirmation – the source referred to a translation page which didn't mention etymology whatsoever. What part of folk, which can be traced back to Old English and other Germanic languages, would be Hindustani? I'm sorry to say it, but it was too unclear and dubious, and that's the reason why I reverted your edit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


ta-ididntno!:) ps.ta4leearnin~mymuisarm2-avagud1!:) 19:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome[edit]

(in response to the thank you sent me for a revert). --Dixtosa (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edits at rope (rollback in error)[edit]

Before I reinstate my edits, I would just like to note that "rope" is in fact commonly used as a sexual term. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I have added your definition back to the page. DTLHS (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for reverting your changes. However, is the definition grammatically correct? I'm refering to the "the shots semen" – I feel that there's a word missing, possibly "of". @DTLHS am I in the wrong here? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Finland Swedish pronunciation[edit]

Hi RobbieSWE, do you know of any online resources that have pronunciation on Finland Swedish? Just curious – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 08:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos unfortunately I don't have any online resources, just the Swedish article about the subject. If I manage to find anything, I'll let you know. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Romanian & Swedish[edit]

Hej (or should I say Hei) Robbie SWE, I've just been wondering about two very different languages that you can speak as native languages. How can that be the case? One of my theories is that you're a Romanian who was grown up in Sweden – AWESOME meeos * (「欺负」我) 23:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hej @Awesomemeeos! Your hunch is correct — my family relocated from Romania to Sweden when I was really young. I therefore consider myself a Swede :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


To keep track of their contributions. Why would you want to delete that? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:D599:A3D8:A87C:4080 19:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Because you are currently an anon – you haven't created your own account and why would you want to track their contributions in the first place? Once you create an account you can create a personal watchlist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
How can I create this kind of watchlist? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:25A4:A0E1:70D8:4F46 22:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you register – choose a username and a password, it's as easy as that. Afterwards you'll see the label "Watchlist" besides "Preferences" – create your own watchlist and add how many pages you want. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Although admittedly, afaict you can't add specific users' contribs to your watchlist, just specific entries. — Kleio (t · c) 18:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I've added users to my raw watchlist so that I easily can find their latest contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png A barnstar for you!

This barnstar is awarded to you for your hard work in reverting vandalism. Thank you very much!

Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


Just so you know, they're back again. —CodeCat 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

ːJa, ich bin wieder daǃ No, und?--/#Ionel Bănescu#/ 21:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Can you please answer me why you deleted my addition to the page Gãrtsia.This add was vrry helpfull cause i added how is Greek called by Greek Aromanians -_-.Gãrtsia and Gartsescu are Slavic the correct is Grecu and Grecia Kp4816 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kp4816! I'm not contesting the use of the forms grecu and Grecia, however, you did not follow Wiktionary standards. I understand that you're pretty new around here, but please take the time to see how other articles are created to get the real look and feel we're after. I'll take a second look at the article and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

How Swedes speak english so well??[edit]

Hi @Robbie SWE, I wonder if you know how Swedes can speak English so well, that I don't even hear an accent from them? Is it because they are exposed to a lot of American TV shows? Or superb education? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 20:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Well, there are several reasons;
(1) we start learning English in the 1st grade (we also have private English schools in every major city),
(2) we don't dub TV shows or movies (unless they're cartoons or kids' films),
(3) we're extremely Americanised (I studied intercultural communication at uni and we learned that Sweden is the fastest country in the world to acquire trends from the States),
(4) the historical ties to Anglophone countries are very strong (over 1 million Swedes emigrated to the US in the late 19th to early 20th century and the UK is a study abroad hot spot for Swedish students, including yours truly)
(5) last but not least, we're pretty good at creating stuff that people want (IKEA, H&M, Volvo, Spotify, "music" in general, etc.), which makes English a lingua franca for each and every business aspiring to become a global household name.
There are probably many more reasons why Swedes master English so well. Having said that, I assure you that not all Swedes speak English masterfully. There are loads of more or less funny faux pas committed by Swedes on a daily basis when speaking English, but I guess that's an entirely different conversation. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, their accent may sound flawless and non-foreign, but it's their grammatical mistakes which reveal them as a foreigner? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 08:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say a little bit of both – accents vary and so does grammatical correctness. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating an RFV[edit]

Hi. When you tag the page you also need to create the RFV discussion so people can see it. Click the little + plus sign that appears on the tagged page. I did headass for you. Equinox 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Equinox! I intended on doing so, but got distracted elsewhere. Thank you for the heads-up though, I promise to be more careful from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert changes on mille?[edit]

The edit removed sourced, updated information. 13:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@ I felt that the changes, although sourced, were far too major to keep without having discussed the subject with the community first. I encourage you to open a discussion in the Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium in order to invite our experts to chime in. If it turns out that I have acted incorreclty, I apologise beforehand. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Full protection of pages[edit]

You shouldn't do this as it makes it impossible for bots to update pages automatically. Full protection should only be used if it's really necessary and rarely needs to be permanent. —CodeCat 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

My intention was to fulfil steps 10 and 11 here. I felt while doing it that I wasn't completely in the right, but I closed my eyes and hoped for the best. @CodeCat which level of protection is more appropriate? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Move protection is ok, although I haven't really seen people vandalise page with moves. For editing, semi-protection is ok, that just keeps IPs and new users out. —CodeCat 19:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm particularly slow tonight – blame it on all those Easter eggs I've been eating lately – does that mean that I have to change protection or am I good to go? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest reducing the edit protection on your user page. —CodeCat 20:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

why to revert soft brexit and hard brexit?[edit]

why to revert soft brexit and hard brexit? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I reverted you contributions because they did not improve the entries. Please remember that we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. I have a hard time seeing how adding arbitrary statements such as "[...]and resume full control over immigration" and "[...]or anything less than a full withdrawal" contribute to a clarification of what soft Brexit and hard Brexit mean. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)



Polish is my native language, and my edit was correct. Look here. Polish "insulina" in plural (Liczba mnoga) is "insuliny". But the explanation is in Polish so you will have a problem with understanding. You can also find in Polish Google: "różne insuliny", which means "different insulins".

But we can discuss the subject in Polish, if you wish ;-) Ja naprawdę wiem jak jest "insulina" w liczbie mnogiej, zwłaszcza po polsku. Pozdrawiam serdecznie. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I don't speak Polish I'm afraid. The reason why I reverted your edit is not that it was wrong; it was because it was added outside the standard template and the plural should be visible in the dropdown declension section anyway. Since I don't know the language, please feel free to check this category and see what template is appropriate for this entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ please see the entry now. Do not add the plural outside the template again. Thank you! --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Good job. Now the table is correct. Thanks! 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


In reference to this edit, even when the formatting is off and it all looks weird, it's always better to try to fix something rather than to revert it. When you can't fix it or don't have the requisite knowledge, ping somebody who does. Luckily it was on my watchlist, since I had created the Swahili L2 there, but for most of them it just requires a bit of extra effort to ensure that content actually gets added. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, sorry about that. I was going through anon contributions and taking into consideration that the person deleted categories, I just figured it was some kind of lite vandalism. Since my Swahili skills are practically inexistent, I didn't feel comfortable correcting anything. I'll keep this in mind from now on so thank you for the heads-up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I certainly appreciate you patrolling anons! Anyway, you can ping me if this anon ever reappears. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Hey Rob. So, what did you want to discuss anyway? You know, one thing I'm interested in is the conditional tense in Aromanian, also once found in Old Romanian. Unfortunately my relatives that speak Aromanian are no longer around, so I'd have to do independent research online. And information on the grammar is rather scant. As of now, we only have it for a handful of articles, like cãntu. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Word dewd544 Sorry about the delay! Thank you for getting back to me. I'm fascinated by your deep understanding for Romance languages, and I'm grateful for the work you've done on Romanian and Aromanian. Your background is similar to mine – although I'm born in Romania, I also have Greek and Italian roots – so it's always interesting to hear your thoughts on Eastern Romance linguistics. Now, to your question about the conditional tense, unfortunately things get a bit trickier. When I studied Portuguese grammar and history at Uni, we learned that the conditional/subjunctive tense was the weakest feature past on from Latin. It didn't survive in Eastern Romance and in Western Romance it had to be reconstructed. The conditional/subjunctive tense is "dying" in Western Romance as well – good riddance if you ask me, I've always had a hard time grasping the concept of this tense which differs greatly from the Swedish conditional tense. Hope you manage to find more info on the subject and please feel free to share. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right. It does seem to be used less and less even in Western Romance. Of course, it's completely gone in Romanian, but some vestigial/remnant forms of a synthetic conditional were still found in some of the really early Romanian writings up to the 17th century from what I recall. Obviously, that doesn't need including on here, but it is interesting simply from a historical linguistics point of view. Aromanian and Istro-Romanian (itself basically a 15th century offshoot of Romanian) also seems to have maintained some of it to some extent, but I'm not sure how much it's actually used in normal speech anymore. I was just interested in finding out more about this. And by being "reconstructed" in the Western languages, you mean that the conditional in general was basically a purely Romance creation, not stemming directly from Latin, which is true. It's constructed with the imperfect of Latin habere. Seems to have been originally periphrastic. Romanian still is, and Portuguese still uses it in speech often. Different languages seem to have taken from different elements from Latin, too. Anyway, I don't know much about Swedish... I'd imagine it's less complex grammatically than German, but more than English? Word dewd544 (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Word dewd544 Exactly, I agree with you – it is an interesting topic and I would also like to know more about the vestiges of this tense in Old Romanian. When it comes to Swedish I would say that if it isn't just as simplified as in English, then it's even more simplified. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My Edit - PLAy My QIUZ !!![edit]

WHY Did YOu Revert My EDIT ??? I WAS Construtive Altough !!!

Your rollback is in error (no-goes/no-gos)[edit]

The title "no-gos" is, itself, an incorrect spelling/pluralisation of the term "no-go/es". At the very least "go" would require an apostrophe to show pluralisation: "go's".

Dictionary searches, and a general search of the internet, show either "no-goes" or "no-go's" for pluralisation, where dictionaries provide pluralised results. The majority of dictionaries do not include a plural form.

I can find only two results that utilise "no-gos", as per this Wiki entry. "" links to the Wikipedia article in question therefore creating problems as per its validity in regards the question of how to pluralise "no-go". It does, however, also show an entry above for: " no-goes". The only other result I can find is Google's dictionary, but Google does not provide information on its etymology or meaning, preferring to refer back to the singular "no-go".

Encarta, Macmillan (British and American), and American Heritage all utilise "no-goes" as the plural. 04:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean and I agree with you. However, I think it best if you were to bring this matter to the attention of the community. According to the entry, no-gos is the plural of no-go which is an alternative form of no go which is uncountable. I think that somewhere something went terribly wrong and it would be best if you present your arguments to the Tea Room. I would personally erase the entry altogether and mark no-go as uncountable. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Request / Advice needed[edit]

Hi, Sorry to bother you with such a request, but I created a module in the Module namespace when I intended to add it as a User Sandbox Module. My concern with moving the module is that I'd rather not create an unintended/unnecessary redirect from the initial module to my module sandbox.

What is your suggestion here? It's not a module that necessarily 'needs' to remain in the general Module namespace. Could you perhaps delete the module altogether -- as opposed to me just blanking the page or leaving it as is?

I appreciate your time,

Tezamen (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tezamen Hi! Thank you for contacting me! I'm afraid that I'm not so well-versed when it comes to modules and templates, but I'll ping others who might be able to help. (@DTLHS, @Erutuon, @Wyang) --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tezamen You can move it to Module:User:Tezamen/Page_tabs (or some other similar name under your username). After moving modules, the old module will be deleted, rather than being kept as a redirect like pages in other namespaces. Wyang (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang Oh that sounds great! Will it return the old module to its original state (in other words, will it appear as though there never was a module there/page created in the first place)? Thanks for the help! Tezamen (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tezamen No problem! The old module will have a note saying this page was previously moved to another page. An example can be seen here. Wyang (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Rv 'bucket of sunshine'[edit]

Was I reverted for any reason other than being not logged in? No reason was provided in the edit log. --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 15:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the definition a euphemism? In that case, it wasn't mentioned and you didn't provide citations or quotes to support this sense. This is the reason why it was reverted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It is, and a simple google search brings up a good number of examples of its use. Where and how should I list sources? I assume sourcing works like Wikipedia and only mass-printed media is acceptable? --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, I figured it out for myself. If this is not sufficient then I surrender. I would have appreciated being given some guidance rather than being treated as a common vandal. --2603:300A:A01:3600:7C8B:EBE3:62EB:1B97 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for readding the information together with citations. I assure you that my revert was not intended to make you feel like a vandal and I apologise if it made you feel that way. The rollback function doesn't allow us to give an explanation, but I'm glad that you reached out to me here to settle this issue. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Kamâl is Atatürk's given name. It's better to write this. - Ullierlich (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, as long as it's coherent I guess it's fine. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


You're free to tell me why you think my edit to 'harlot' was worth reverting twice. Because as far as I can tell, the edit made the entry if not correct, at least more correct than it was. The word 'harlot' is not archaic (but as I mentioned in my edit comment, it may be dated or historical), and likely not any more derogatory than the word 'prostitute' either. I cannot find any such usage tags in other dictionaries. -- 18:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for messaging me! The word harlot is considered old-fashioned/archaic by the Collins Dictionary – the trends report found on the same page supports this classification and shows a steady decline in usage, which today is at an all-time low – and Oxford Dictionaries also states that it is archaic and derogatory. If you feel that we should reconsider, please open a discussion in the Tea Room so that our more seasoned users have a chance to pitch in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi saw the Hokkien term was missing so I added it? 2605:E000:8597:8B00:C4D8:C243:852D:B220 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I was quick to push the button, but it's reverted now. Thank you for leaving me a message! --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Yes, your rollback is in error. The prior version was significantly flawed. Did you really look at it? (1.) The first meaning had a quote that was a fragment which was nearly nonsense, it was incorrectly formed, and incorrectly attributed. While it was buried under the "quotations" pull-down, bots that comb wiktionary propagate this fragment all over the web so fixing it helps more than wiktionary. I added the full quote plus the correct attribution. The full quote not only makes more sense, the restored part draws a contrast and exemplifies the meaning much better. I fail to understand how anyone could have a problem with correcting that, and I assume the pull-down caused you to miss or be confused by this. (2.) That first meaning had two quotes, the Huxley fragment and the Cardozo Law quote, and the latter violates wiktionary's NPOV. While it's a valid and sourced quote, it'sss is clearly a political statement that makes a (debatable) negative criticism of a political group. At the least, it's controversial. If you're a target of that statement, it may be offensive. There is no need to publish a NPOV example when plenty other examples exist... such as the original fragment that I fixed. Note that I did not take it upon myself to be the thought police and delete the Cardozo quote. I simply moved it to the pull-down and switched it with the restored Huxley quote. (3.) The second meaning didn't have an example/quote. It's understood that every word and meaning in wiktionary don't need or should have an example, but again, did you look at what was there? It was actually a *comment* requesting for a quote. Comments belong in the Discussion, not the Entry. I could have rightly deleted that error and left it at that. Instead I honored that request and provided a very clear usage with attribution. (I did not provide a Hamilton quote because frankly they're not expositive for this purpose and citing things written in the mid-19th Century makes the word seem archaic compared to citing Evdokimov from the 20/21st Century.) (4.) Hypostatize is a word that can be tricky because it overlaps with other figures of speech, its technical use in linguistics is a shade different than what's here, but it's use in British English conforms very well. So examples help. If you don't like quotes/examples then delete all of them but don't roll back to a clearly flawed entry that has errors. It makes no sense to remove corrections and revert to errors. Since you're clearly monitoring this and many other pages, you obviously have an interest in getting things right. I'm confident that when you think about what I've written here and how I fixed the entry, you'll revert back to the corrections I made. But because you're a regular editor, I suggest you do one more thing that I did not do... I suggest you delete the superfluous NPOV quote. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I patrolled that revision; I thought it was an improvement too. Equinox 20:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for contacting me on my talk page, and most of all, thank you for your thorough explanation. I apologise for reverting your contribution – in hindsight, I believe I may have acted arbitrarily, not allowing myself to contemplate if the contribution indeed was an improvement. I have reverted my rollback, but I have not deleted the Cardozo Law quote. My reason for not doing so is mainly that I'm not it the mood for censoring quotes which may be controversial. If anyone has a problem with that particular quote, they are more than welcome to raise the question in one of our forums. I apologise again for acting hastily, and I encourage you to continue to contribute wherever and however you see fit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Tx. Keep up the good work. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Wikipedia article about intellectual disability contradicting me[edit]

My understanding is intellectual disability refers to problems with overall intelligence, not any problem related to specific parts of intelligence. For example, I have severe below average motor skills (dyspraxia) and scored 70 on the motor skill part of IQ, and I also have below average Visual Spatial memory/reasoning (Visual Spatial Learning Disability), I scored 81 on that part, which is 19 points below average, and I have below average math skills (dyscalculia), I scored 85 on the math part, but I was still considered non-intellectually disabled because I scored 98 overall, which is only 2 points below average. I have disabilities relating to my intellect, but I'm not considered intellectually disabled because I have a normal overall IQ. I have never heard the term intellectual disability used to refer to specific learning problems such as dyscalculia. Leucostictes (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In other words, the definition I removed seems to be saying intellectual disability can refer to learning disabilities in specific areas, while I think it solely means problems with general intelligence. Maybe I'm mistaken but I've never heard it used in reference to specific learning disabilities before. Leucostictes (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, I was mistaken. The entry has been verified. However, wikipedia does not contradict what I said, there article defines it as low general intellect, not specific intellectual problems such as dyscalculia. But the entry has still been verified. So you were basically correct and I was mistaken.Leucostictes (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leucostictes, the revert was not in any way personal — I was relying on the following explanation from Wikipedia:

  • It is defined by an IQ score under 70 in addition to deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors that affect everyday, general living. Once focused almost entirely on cognition, the definition now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environments. As a result of this focus on the person's abilities in practice, a person with an unusually low IQ may not be considered to have intellectually disability. Intellectual disability is subdivided into syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits associated with other medical and behavioral signs and symptoms are present, and non-syndromic intellectual disability, in which intellectual deficits appear without other abnormalities.

In all honesty, the term is pretty new to me and apparently far more complex than I expected it to be. I believe the citations provided by Kiwima have improved the entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I thought you were saying intellectual disability could also refer to specific problems with intellect instead of low general intellect. I think I misunderstood you. Leucostictes (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision history of "Κρήτη"[edit]

Hello, Kreta is also used in Serbo-Croatian, especially in Croatia and Bosnia. Krit is only used in Serbia. I would like you to revert your edit.

As proof, here are Croatian and Bosnian wiki articles:; -- 11:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that the term is used in Croatia and Bosnia — you removed a valid term in order to add Kreta. That is the only reason why I reverted your contribution. I will add it again and I urge you to be more careful; don't erase correct information to add your contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


"Innate, genetic or developmental origin" would seem to me like synonyms. Innate means its genetic, as opposed to environmental, which would be external factors. Developmental is the only one of three that might not be genetic. Would it be ok for me to word it "development or genetic"?Leucostictes (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Leucostictes, the current definition doesn't need an additional explanation. Please remember that we're a dictionary – we don't have to explain everything empirically. If anyone wants to dive into the subject, they can always click the Wikipedia link and read about it to their hearts' content. I appreciate your contributions, but I feel that you at times overcomplicate things. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. Have I made any good contributions so far?Leucostictes (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Innate can mean either genetic or developmental. It simply means "present at birth" which could be either. —Rua (mew) 18:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course you have! You're very knowledgeable in diverse fields and you have brought problematic issues to the attention of the community. I encourage you to keep doing what you're doing, but please bear in mind that a dictionary isn't always the best place for presenting empirical facts which are oftentimes prone to revision and/or discussion. Naturally we strive to be as correct as possible, but with that said, Equinox stated it quite illustriously when discussing changes to the term adolescent: Would we specify "short" hair as a certain number (of centimetres, etc.)? I think you get what I'm trying to say here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Equinox told me not to use real people's names in sample sentences when I used the name of a former wikipedia editor, I used Annie Jay's but she's a public figure because she's a Wisconsin Prosecuting Attorney and also a former actress and author. Is that different since she's a public figure or do I need to remove those sample sentences to? [7]Leucostictes (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally I see no reason why you should remove those sample sentences. Just be careful when using real people's names. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

An editor is insisting on including 18-40 year olds as a definition of young adult in usage notes. A 40 year old's life is almost half over, I don't see how that's a young adult. I thought the term meant 12-21 year olds, or maybe 18-21 year olds if one insists on limiting the term to legal adults. Leucostictes (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with you — 18-40 is too broad a range, although I get why people pushing 40 would gladly consider themselves "young adults". I suggest avoiding numbers altogether and just focus on the qualities. In other words, the current definition seems perfectly fine to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the adolescent entry should define adolescents as being necessarily non-adults, " Someone who has reached puberty but is not yet an adult.", which it currently does, because the term adolescence sometimes includes 18 year olds, and 18 year olds are usually both legal adults, have adult bodies and adult minds and are popularly viewed as adults, and additionally adolescence usually includes 16-17 year olds and even though 16-17 year olds are not usually viewed as adults, they do have adult bodies and partially adult minds although slightly less adult than 18 and up, and in most jurisdictions it is possible for them to become legal adults either through emancipation or through marriage, for example when Courtney Stodden married Doug Hutchison when she was 16 years old she became a legal adult as a result of the marriage, so not all adolescents are children legally or biologically. Obviously some adolescents are non-adults, but not all are. Leucostictes (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Leucostictes, you're doing it again – overcomplicating things. Just leave it as it is, cause you're getting too caught up in technicalities and therefore risk rubbing other users the wrong way. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Is my entry on multiple intelligences ok?Leucostictes (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks ok to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Amgine reverted me on young adult when I included mental maturity as a characteristic. Sexual maturity can be achieved as early as 8 years old in rare cases, but mental maturity never begins prior to 12 years old, that's why I added mental maturity, because the term young adult never refers to people younger than 12, since one of the characteristics defining adulthood is mental maturity. At least I've never heard under 12s referred to as adults. I know under 18s are usually viewed as children, I'm just specifying 12 because that's the youngest age I've ever come across referred to as an adult. Since sexual maturity can include 8 year olds should mental maturity be added also? Leucostictes (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Leucostictes, I'm saying this for your own good: leave it be. The current defintion looks fine, no changes needed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Other than my being hung up on technicalities, is there anything else inappropriate about my editing?Leucostictes (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, the ones I've seen where you've stayed away from numbers have been fine. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Romania is not new latin...[edit]

Hi I'm the who edited the article on Romania. Romania is not (just) new Latin, in late antiquity and the early middle ages the term was used to refer to the Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire. Hence the Italian region Emilia-Romagna, named such as it as the last land held by the Exarchate of Ravenna and the Greek term Ῥωμανία, a name for the byzantine empire. The use of the name to refer to the eastern European country comes from Romanian (Vlach) nationalists appropriating the older term in the 19th century. This is why I think my edits are justified. —This unsigned comment was added by 2601:801:103:f032:9f4:647b:8014:e70f (talk).

The (deliberate?) omission of Romanian România and the erroneous addition of (Ancient) Greek Ῥωμανία which seems to be the source of Latin Romania aside, both I, and I believe @CodeCat who also reverted your contribution, removed this segment because the definition currently encompasses New Latin. I understand why you added these descendants though – we currently lack a definition which includes historical usage of the term. However, etymologies aren't always as transparent as they seem to be. For instance Italian Romagna is derived from the vulgar form *Romandìola, and therefore not directly from Latin Romania. I suggest we open a discussion in the Tea room or the Etymology scriptorium before we do anything else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I reverted only because the descendants were misplaced under the English section. —Rua (mew) 17:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I see, thank you for clearing that up. I reverted because of other reasons. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the Romania is from Greek or the other way around. If it's from Greek simply add that as the etymology, thought if it is indeed from Greek wouldn't it be late Latin? Is there a tag for that? I did over look the Romanian form, if we can work this out it should be added. Killerbee256
According to the info at Ῥωμανία, Latin is a direct descendent. Anyways, I think the current defintion in the Latin section of Romania needs to be looked through and revised. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Teenager Note apparent nonsense[edit]

It says this here [8]: "Sometimes only refers up to the legal minor limit in many countries of eighteen years old, or sometimes only refers up to the point of high school graduation." That doesn't make sense to me, I've never heard that. So on someone's eighteenth birthday is he considered a non-teenager, despite an 18 year not being significantly different from a 17 year old? I've not heard of that before. I won't change it if its true. Do you think the usage notes are correct or do you agree its mistaken?Leucostictes (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, smells fishy to me too and I agree with you. However, I wouldn't bother changing anything unless you want a tug-of-war. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Surprisingly enough, they agreed with me and removed the rest of the note when I removed the part I didn't like. :)Leucostictes (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Great! Nicely done and it goes to show that a collaborative spirit will always take you that extra mile. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Obviously you are not aware of the fact that (often non-Latin) Translingual terms are listet as descendants and not as derived terms. See e.g. bombyx#Descendants, accipiter#Descendants, aequoreus#Descendants, alauda#Descendants where the Translingual term is a descandant. And in advance, no I didn't add the descendants to these other entries.
Furthermore, derived terms must be in the same language as the entry (WT:ELE#Derived terms), that is Latin derived terms must be Latin terms. But w:Pseudomonas kilonensis ("Sikorski, et al. 2001") probably isn't Latin, although that would be a matter of an WT:RFVN to verify. - 17:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if you see my revert as provocative, but I still believe that it is a big mistake to add translingual terms as descendants. In a category with over 1000 terms you pretty much managed to find the only ones listed as descendants. The issue concerning translingual terms as descendants is worth bringing to the attention of the community in the WT:BP. On another note, Swabian has a language code and is considered a language on Wiktionary – if you revert it again, you will be blocked. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, again, it's common practice list translingual descendants as descendants and not as derived terms. And if the translingual term isn't even Latin, than it can't even be a derived term by WT:ELE#Derived terms.
That apology together with a threat makes the apology look very insincerely. - 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, as you removed the see also Kiloniensis again without explanation: The term does exist and the term is Latin and it's worth adding as an see-also term.
And as you put the taxonomic term into the see-also section: It's common practice that see-also terms must be in the same language too, i.e. see-also terms in an Latin entry must be Latin entries. - 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oy vey, taxonomic terms are currently being looked at and will probably be changed (hence the hidden category). Regarding my initial apology, I was referring to the dispute we had about kilonensis. What you consider a "threat" is merely a heads-up – we really don't like edit wars, but we do encourage people to discuss issues before they start reverting in absurdum. I agree with you that we have conflicting information about Swabian, but instigating an edit war is definitely not the way to go if you want a change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Again, see e.g.

  • w:Swabian German: "Swabian [..] is one of the Alemannic dialects of High German"
  • Swabian#Proper noun: "One of the Alemannic dialects of High German" and also "dialect" in the translation table.

As for your Category:Swabian language: English Wiktionary treats German dialects as languages (see also Category:Central Franconian language, Category:Pennsylvania German language and compare with e.g. w:Central Franconian dialects). Which except for the label "language" makes sense, as the High German dialects are more like LDLs. But WT's (mislabelled) categories doesn't proof anything.
And again, alternatives could be just "# Swabian" (which would result in a link to Swabian where it's "dialect"), or "Swabian dialect or language" (which leaves open what it is). - 17:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


Alt right entry says it is both "white nationalist" and "white supremacist". I think it should just say white nationalist because the two terms are synonyms so its redundant and the first is more neutral.Leucostictes (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Supremacy needn't be about specific nations. Equinox 20:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
White supremacy is specific to the European ethnicity, so is White Nationalism. Just like Zionism is specific to Jewry. Leucostictes (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Leucostictes, sorry for the late response. I'm siding with Aryaman here (see this discussion) – the current definition looks alright to me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Robbie, do you know where the Romanian word pix (ballpoint pen) came from? The article says it is from English pick, but I don't see the logic. —Stephen (Talk) 02:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown, according to DEX, pix is indeed from English pick, which was the name of a brand of ballpoint pens. I think we're dealing with a genericised trademark here. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any additional information such as first mention or if the brand ceased to exist. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Look up "Pick Pen Company": this page [9] suggests they folded in (or after?) the 1930s. Equinox 22:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. A very famous ballpoint pen company is BIC, and I thought that pix might be from BIC. So there really was a Pick Co. Maybe BIC was named after PICK. —Stephen (Talk) 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, awesome findings Equinox! --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


I see what you're saying about us not being an encyclopedia and if we click on adulthood not wanting to be directed towards age of majority, but I think "consent" should say "consent to sex" and pipelink to age of consent, because otherwise readers won't know what's being discussed, since "age of consent" is a fairly unusual term, or else the reference to that legal age should be removed and the other examples kept. But I'll defer to your judgement. What do you think?Leucostictes (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you should leave it be. Consent as a general term is not necessarily only linked to sex, therefore your suggestion would be misleading. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


I noticed this change by you [[10]]. An emperor is a kind of monarch, so an empire would be a monarchy. Monarchy means a form of government in which one individual is sovereign, so an emperor would usually still be a monarch. Napeoleon was a monarch, for example.Leucostictes (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Linguistically speaking, there is a difference. You're right that an emperor is a kind of monarch, although an empire is not synonymous with a kingdom. Consider word pairs: king < kingdom, monarch < monarchy, emperor < empire, dictator < dictatorship, tsar < tsardom, prince/princess < principality. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit? Not all monarchies are kingdoms. And you are wrong, the Vatican is listed as a monarchy on wikipedia, which is sourced. Actually, I used to troll on wikipedia and one of my trolling edits I think was intentionally taking the monarchy part out and stating "the Vatican is not a monarchy" and they replied, "yes it is", if I remember correctly. I also read a book called Lives of the Popes and it stated the Vatican was a monarchy. I forget the author's name though. I don't know about the Dalai Lama but the Pope is definitely a monarch in the Vatican itself. The Vatican has its own criminal code, I'm very sure of. For example it was noted in Europe until recently to have the lowest legal age for sexual activity, 12 years old, because the first Pope who ruled the Vatican independently of Italy had adopted Italy's criminal code, and when Italy raised the legal age for sex to 14, the Vatican still stayed at 12 until it was raised by Pope Francis recently. The Pope has absolute legislative, judicial and executive power in the Vatican, and this is officially true, not just factually. So he fits the definition of a monarch. However, even if you aren't convinced the pope is a monarch, there are to many non-kingdom monarchies to justify making kingdom and monarchy synonyms, all kingdoms are monarchies but not all monarchies are kingdoms. Leucostictes (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to try and stay as calm as possible, so I apologise beforehand if anything I say comes off as rude. First of all, the Vatican is an absolute monarchy, but – and this is a big BUT – an ecclesiastical and elective theocracy, where the Pope is the Sovereign of the Vatican City State which he becomes the moment he accepts his election as Pope. The notion of monarchy itself is to be able to pass on the crown to your kin, therefore technically speaking, electing a leader disqualifies the notion of a standard monarchy. The Vatican City State should therefore be considered a special case. Secondly, what's your hang-up on ages for sexual activity? It has no bearing whatsoever in this discussion.

Listen, I think you're misunderstanding the second definition of monarchy – the term has semantically and historically been used in that way, hence the Shakespeare quote (you can easily substitute "monarchy" in said quote with "kingdom", and it would still make sense). Please read this, this and this. I reverted your changes, because they are not contributing to making the definition any clearer, especially considering that kingdom is already listed under synonyms. Besides, the Usage notes section quite clearly (and effectively, I might add) explains the situation, so please – I ask you one last time – don't do anything else to the entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. The reason I gave the example about the legal age for sexual activity was to show the Pope is a legislator by giving an example of a law he passed in the Vatican that was continued after Italy's law changed to show he was the legislator for Vatican, not the Italian government. I was just trying to demonstrate he's a monarch. I won't change the article again, sorry.Leucostictes (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's ok. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)--Robbie SWE (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to change the page, but you're not correct that monarchy has to be hereditary. It strictly speaking means a government led by one individual who has undivided state sovereignty. It was coined by Aristotle from Greek words for one and state, so a state ruled by one. So passing on your crown to kin is not technically part of the notion of monarchy.Leucostictes (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI, from Wikipedia: "A monarchy is a form of government in which a group, generally a family representing a dynasty, embodies the country's national identity and its head, the monarch, exercises the role of sovereignty. [...] Traditionally the monarch's post is inherited and lasts until death or abdication. [...] Most modern European monarchies are constitutional and hereditary with a largely ceremonial role[...]". --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't change the definition, but I noticed usage notes said monarchy referred to "nominally absolute rulers" there were some hereditary monarchy of the kind described who actually were absolute, such as the Emperors of Russia and Kings of France prior to 1789, so I changed it to "nominally or actually absolute". Leucostictes (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an improvement. "[N]ominally or actually absolute" makes no sense and will only confuse people. If they want to dive into the subject they can always read the Wikipedia article. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it myself, but sense 3 of monarchy seems somewhat redundant to sense 1, at least to me.Leucostictes (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Principality of Wales[edit]

Wales is not a principality, that entry is mistaken. Its not even nominally a principality. I posted an rfv where I quoted from the wikipedia article which states Wales is not even nominally a principality. I think that entry should either be deleted or redefined. The Prince of Wales is not a monarch or even a nobleman, he simply holds that title by virtue of being oldest or only son of the British King/Queen. It has not monarchical meaning. Do you agree with me it should be deleted or redefined? Leucostictes (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Oy vey, no, I don't think that it should be deleted and I don't think that it needs to be redefined since it is the official name of WalesTywysogaeth Cymru, where the former literally means principality in Welsh. Stop getting caught up in technicalities cause it's starting to get a bit tiresome by now. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Grand Lodge Freemasonry[edit]

The definition is two sentences, the second sentence is "It requires belief in God for membership and is apolitical, in contrast to Grand Orient Freemasonry in Romance language countries." That seems encyclopedic to me. I tried abridging it but Equinox reverted me. Shouldn't this either be removed or shortened? Leucostictes (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page[edit]

How many of your pages must I visit? I think, it's too much honor. Please, visit Talk:летать. Longbowman (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are placing too much importance on the comment "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page". Robbie SWE did not write that. This phrase is generated automatically by the software whenever an edit is reverted. The phrase is inserted automatically to let you know where you can go to appeal the action, if you wish to appeal. We have to revert a large number of edits every day, and we don't have time to leave explanations on hundreds of talk pages. —Stephen (Talk) 07:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


What about you? You're a trustworthy contributor. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:684A:69ED:4AE:562C 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, but I'm completely uninterested. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Or a message?[edit]

Perhaps a friendly message to the IP would be a good idea? --P5Nd2 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@P5Nd2, thanks for the tip and for creating the entry (a favourite of mine) ;-) In all honesty I was just ranting, because I've been dealing with several anons who disregard our layout policies lately. Naturally, a friendly message is the right way to go and it's definitely the highway I ways gonna take...eventually. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

re votator[edit]

Hey Robbie, FYI there have been some communications via OTRS about this page lately. Thanks for reverting it, I went ahead and protected it temporarily as well until the issues have been resolved. - TheDaveRoss 22:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss, thank you for protecting the page! Maybe a stupid question, but what's OTRS? Haven't seen this term before. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This page explains it all, but it is the volunteer customer service desk for all Wikimedia projects. It is where emails go if you follow the "contact us" link to the left and email Wiktionary. - TheDaveRoss 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I suspected it was something like that. I'm just surprised they didn't contact me directly instead. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Robbie,

On this page you reverted the addition of a link to the quote. Please help me understand why linking to the quote would not be appropriate?

Thanks. —This unsigned comment was added by 2603:3024:181b:b000:a121:c477:961b:1c89 (talk).

Thank you for contacting me! I've honestly not noticed if we allow links in quotes like the one you added. I just figured it was some random act of vandalism, so I reverted it. I apologise for not checking first if the link was legit, I'll revert back to your change. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


You made a mistake in editing this page. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

And what would that mistake be according to you? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You can see what you did, so I don't need to specify what the mistake was. I only need to specify why it was a mistake. Look at the etymology listed under jam tomorrow. That phrase comes from Latin iam. Therefore, your edit was a mistake. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
No, it wasn't a mistake – that's not how descendants work. The phrase jam tomorrow is a pun and should not be included as a direct descendant of Latin iam. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

french genders[edit]

hello. the genders of french nouns are vulnerable to vandalism. anyone could change the gender of any word and make it look like a correction, and nobody would notice. how do you protect that please. thank you --2A02:2788:A4:F44:AD43:B0CC:F5D0:CEF 20:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The bad news is that we can't protect every French noun, because we don't want a restricted Wiktionary. The good news is that we have some excellent admins/users who are diligent and revert these acts of vandalism. If you want to help us, by all means, feel free to lend a helping hand where needed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
no, of course that would be too much and there's always room for improvement in so large a span as an entire entry. but wouldn't it be possible to somehow lock away the genders and prevent their further edition. for example, once three trusted (autopatrolled?) users proficient in french would have "validated" the gender, it would be considered "safe" and "unimprovable", so nobody could edit it. what do you think. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:4C4B:B719:1529:6D94 21:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I'm afraid that locking away the genders once they're confirmed in order to prevent further editing – albeit logical and positive, IMO – isn't possible from an operative point of view. Technically, there probably are ways to do this, however, I fear that if we start locking certain parameters in entries, we won't be able to set appropriate boundaries. I'm just wondering, can you provide me with examples where French genders have been deliberately and incorrectly altered? If the same user has done this, I'll be able to monitor their contributions. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, there's this one guy... jk. i dont have any example right now, fortunately. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:4094:6160:A390:B951 20:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

added citation[edit]

I added citation for the text I added earlier. Sorry for not putting it up then!Markarchil (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, we tend to like citations :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


Please note that for Chinese entries Etymology should only include information about the origin of the term, while the box on the right provides a simple breakdown of the meanings of the individual hanzi. Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Tooironic! I wasn't aware of that, but I'll keep it in mind from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

French translation please[edit]

Excuse-me, but someone who wants to say "please make…" riskes to say «s il vous plait faites…» instead of «veuillez faire s il vous plait…» 00:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that you don't seem to understand how translations work around here – the translation needed here is strictly that of "please". Take a look at the other translations and judge for yourself if your contribution was appropriate. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

«veuillez» being linked to «please», please turn back «please» to «veuillez», so please restore me. 21:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not going to happen. That kind of information can be added under "Usage notes" at the main French entry, but please keep it out of the translations section. --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Issoba and Chukma[edit]

Robbie, I haven’t another way to contact you, but I saw you edited my posts for “Issoba” and “Chukma”. I corrected the articles and my post about the history of the word “Issoba” was deleted. Please don’t change that, as it took my a while to write it.

chikashshanompa’ anompoli. :-)


Gerald 3gbraz3 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollback Ἤπειρος[edit]

Reverted this change even though citation to the LSJ was provided in the Edit Summary.


At Iroquois you reinserted an etymology which is not accepted by any current authorities, and which is not supported by a source - and you removed two proposed etymologies that are actually sourced. You could have simply fixed the typoes instead. I suggest you read the etymology section at the article Iroquois before you make further changes to the etymology of Iroquois. 12:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad formatting and typos are always warning flags – most vandals don't bother following our rules so I just figured that the changes were arbitrary, despite being sourced (N.B. the current etymology still looks like crap from a technical point of view). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt – I've opened a discussion about it at the WT:Etymology scriptorium to seek input from more seasoned users. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Woolly Back[edit]

You stated to leave a message if I did not agree with the revert. It seems several people, over a prolonged period, do not agree with the definition used. Google searching finds only one source (the The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English) that supports the term being used to refer to "an unsophisticated person from the countryside" or (from an American perspective) the Welsh.

1) Since it is a word for word copy from the dictionary, it should be sourced otherwise it seems like it would be a copyright violation.

2) The definition ignores plenty of other sources that indicate that it does not necessarily mean unsophisticated people but has a more ranging meaning and linked to Liverpool (with various spellings: wooly back, wooly-back, woolly back, and woolly-back).

For example: Fred Fazakerley (2001), Scouse English, p. 29: "Woolyback: someone who isn't a Scouser"; Scouser on p. 24 as being someone from Liverpool.

The Liverpool local newspaper (The Echo) specifies the term to be what was reverted (ranging from people who are not from Liverpool, to people from the outlaying towns/scab labor etc.: link and link; the paper has a separate article that leads credence to the definition used by the Urban Dictionary: link

Other sources of varying quality, ranging from newspapers and books to various websites and comments: link, source, source, link, link, link, link, link, link, link

In summary: I was only able to locate one source that supports the page; said reference does not provide a source, and any other use on the net appears to be mirroring this site and this reference. Everything else, RS or not, states the word is connected to Liverpool and can mean anything from ranging from someone who is not from Liverpool, or is from a surrounding town; originating from 1800s scab labor brought into the city. If anything, this should be grounds to expand the article to note that the term has many more meanings that the two currently used in the article. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Are you aware that you made no effort whatsoever to use correct templates, proper layout or in any way, shape or form add dictionary content? Of course users keep reverting your edits – they come off as vandalism. I'm not contesting your desire to expand the entry – I agree that it should, however, you deleted senses that undoubtedly exist. I suggest that you bring this to the attention of the WT:Tea room. We have several users who can help you expand the entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I repeat: this is the first time I have edited this article. I merely reverted back to what others have also recognized; that the definition used is limited (and to many, incorrect). I am able to utilize the correct templates, layout etc (which apparently is your only concern) and will amend the article shortly. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
(Please sign your posts!) My advice: (1) don't delete existing senses, and (2) still bring this up in the Tea room. Better if more people get a chance to chime in. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A similar problem at 'come'[edit]

Re:your edit [11] (I had noticed it, too), there is a similar problem going on at 'come' (sense 5 and usage note). Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, you're right. I'll take a look tomorrow and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE: Sorry, don't feel obliged. I'd do it, but my edits in English aren't that good.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem at all! You're English is fine, feel free to contribute and I'll take a look. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


Your edit seemed a bit trigger happy. Please research a term before deciding how it ought to be tagged (or not). 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not a case of being trigger happy – it's more a case of you not motivating your change. I agree that Somali is more common, however, what makes Somalian offensive? I suggest you open a discussion about this in, let's say, the Tea Room (better yet, I'll open one myself). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I think this rollback was in error.[edit]

Hi, I edited the page "General American" recently changing this:

"The form of pronunciation of the English language considered to be typical of the United States, largely derived from a Midwestern accent."

To this:

"The form of pronunciation of the English language considered to be typical of the United States, especially excluding the speech of the Southern U.S, New York, and eastern New England."

You rolled it back, and I've come to, essentially, justify my edit (instead of starting an edit war). This definition of "General American" can be found in most scholarly works on the topic, as well as in most English-language dictionaries. For instance, J.C. Wells states it twice in Accents of English, once on page 118:

"A recognizably local accent in the United States can only come from the east or the south. In particular, the accents of eastern New England, metropolitan New York, and the coastal and inland south are readily localizable as such. 'General American' is a term that has been applied to the two-thirds of the American population who do not have a recognizably local accent in the sense just mentioned."

And once on page 470:

"It is this fact [NB: referring to the restricted distribution of non-rhoticity and the trap-bath split] that gives some residual legitimacy to the older classification of American accents as eastern, southern, and General American. 'Eastern' refers to the non-rhotic accents of (i) Boston and eastern New England, and (ii) New York City . . . 'Southern' refers in the first instance to the non-rhotic accents of the lowland south . . . 'General American' comprises that majority of American accents which do not show marked eastern or southern characteristics, including both those deriving basically from the northern speech of the Hudson Valley and upstate New York and those deriving from the midland speech of Pennsylvania."

Such a definition is also the one found in both Merriam-Webster and Collins Dictionary. American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary do not give so strict a definition, but do provide a definition which at least counters the definition found currently on Wikipedia (take special notice of the usage note in American Heritage Dictionaries, specifically stating that GenAm should not be identified with any specific American accent, i.e., the identification of GenAm with Midwestern speech in Wiktionary is incorrect).

The Atlas of North American English by William Labov, Sharon Ash, and Charles Boberg doesn't use the term very often, only in reference to other works which do, but it does mention this in a footnote:

"This term [General American] has not been used by American dialectologists to any extent since the appearance of Kurath (1949), but it continues to be used in Europe. The exact referent is difficult to determine, but it almost always indicates a rhotic, non-Southern dialect."

Although they do not explicitly mention eastern New England and NYC as being excluded, they do later define those two areas, in part, by non-rhoticity, which implies exclusion from General American.

Those are all the sources I currently have access to, but I hope they should be enough to convince that the rollback was in error. Thank you. RaisinBread (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

If you feel confident in your sources, feel free to add the info again. Just remember to add references. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

hello, robert[edit]

Hello Robert. Why did you revert my additions to the "slave" translations? But registered users can do it? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:C584:E40:2981:D777 17:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're registered or not, it is simply deranged to believe that "slave" is or ever was an occupation. You can't in all honesty believe that it is an occupation? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear, Robbie SWE - From EgoAmbulo[edit]

Dear Robbie SWE,

I would like to address the fact I am constantly being reprehended for my edits (when I am not logged in).

For each edit, I am meticulous in what I write and salvage a great ammount of time from my day to think about exactly what I am doing. Of today, I have only edited the descendants of Latin arefacio. Although I am an amateur in the field of linguistics, in my thinking, I can understand that the English suffix of the Latin facio is English -fy. In consequence, I put in English arefy as a descendant of the word. I do not know why I was reprehended therefore.

There is already viable proof that this word exists. And simply enough, there was also a Wiktionary page of English arefy made previously of someone else's doing.

If there are any other queries you have for me relating to this, I shall obligate myself in mustering enough information and research evidence to support my arguments. Also, I would like to point out that am familiar with the fact that I am getting banned nearly every time I edit, under my IP address alone. I ask if you would please contact my talk page immediately, because I am not here to commit vandalism or disruptive edits, but to give back to Wiktionary for what I learned from the website itself.

If I am malevolent, of course allot justice. But I only ask of you to please refrain from dismissing my arguments completely through banning, and voiding my edits. Please instead attempt to understand the reasoning behind my edits. Because misunderstandings like this, of course can be avoided through simple conversation. The things I post, I swear by hand, stand before adequate research. I would not do the site wrong like that.

The Wiktionary page I speak of is here,

Please respond to me as soon as possible about this message, I am very upset about my reprehension.

With utmost respect, EgoAmbulo


  1. Added  3 sources of reference
     2. Added a 4th source of reference to support and affirm my argument effectively.
     3. Fixed Link to 4th source
     4. Added Image of Evidence on March 21st, 2018 (Please regard to image @Robbie SWE)  

(Please read @ Robbie SWE; as the book is free to read as an ebook on google.

The link I sent you is a link to the actual ebook itself. This is inclusively where I got my evidence from. Again, please, please read to verify.)

Year: 1849 Common Era

1. "A Copious and critical English-Latin lexicon, founded on the German-Latin dictionary of Dr. Charles Ernest Georges"

Year: 1783 Common Era

2. "Neues grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache für die Deutschen : vornehmlich aus dem größern englischen Werke des Hrn. Samuel Johnson | Johnson, Samuel"

Year: 1819 Common Era

3. "Neue vollständige und auf die moglichste erleichterung des unterrichts abzweckende Englische sprachlehre für die Deutschen"

Year: 1903 Common Era

4.The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: The Century dictionary ... prepared under the superintendence of William Dwight Whitney

Image of Evidence:

Proof of English "Arefy" deriving from Latin "Arefacere". Ergo, English "Arefaction" must be, by principle, a derivate adjective of English "Arefy".


EgoAmbulo (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC) '-- Side question, what is the most appropriate way to reference long forgotten dictionaries on Wikitionary?

I assure you @EgoAmbulo that you will be reprehended regardless if you're logged in or not if you keep doing these kinds of mistakes (questionable descendant and wrong language code; sloppiness). I'm sorry if you feel victimised and treated unjustly, but in all honesty it shows that you're an amateur in the field of linguistics. Don't get me wrong, I want to encourage you to keep learning but refrain from making dubious changes unless you have the sources to back you up.
For instance, it is a dangerous thing to claim that arefy is directly inherited from Latin ārefacere < ārefaciō. The only source provided in the entry states that the etymology is Latin arere + -fy. Basically, what you did is add an etymology not supported by the only source in the article. In other words, you've added deceiving information. If someone were to click on the source, they would discover that Wiktionary provided unsubstantiated information, not mentioned in the indicated source. It just reflects badly on the project as a whole if our sources are contradicted by the information we provide.
I am convinced that your intentions are good, but I think that you need to take a step back and contemplate why some of your contributions have been reverted. If you're interested in a discussion about descendants, please read this discussion we had a while back. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Those sources are really outdated, but if we set that aside they still don't do you any favours. The first one is a dictionary – English words and their Latin translations, the dictionary doesn't implicitly indicate etymology. The German sources basically discuss arefy as a calque, not as a direct inherited/borrowed term. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
(FYI, I can't read your latest source) But that's the thing, you still can't make that statement – comparative evidence alone comes off as superficial and doesn't take into consideration the historical development of languages. Sometimes there is more to the etymology of a word than meets the eye --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Still can't read it and I'm not going to pay to read a book from 1903. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@EgoAmbulo, you've managed to annoy me into submission. Even though I'm not even remotely convinced by you sources, go ahead and change the etymology of arefy if you still feel it's the right thing to do. BUT – and it's a big but – make sure to use proper referencing (see WT:References). Anything subpar will be reverted. On another note, I'm going to follow your edits because you still seem to make mistakes every now and again. It's not personal; I just want to make sure we maintain a certain level of accuracy around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


I see the rollbacks on bawcock recently. Perfectly reasonable given they were an anonymous IP's first edits, with no edit summary. But the suggested change is also reasonable and cited in various dictionaries. See also: Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2018/February#bawcock. It's not one I have sufficient reference material to make a call on though. -Stelio (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stelio, thank you for contacting me! The reason I reverted was not cause it wasn't reasonable, but merely cause the anon seems to have added contemporary French terms in Old French templates ([12]). It just looked sloppy and I couldn't decide if there was any merit in the changes made. However, provided there are references, feel free to add additional etymologies where you see fit. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


The erroneous use of the template {{etyl}} in lorum#Etymology displays "Proto-Indo-European", which in the context of the sentence is nonsensical. Even ignoring the fact (though relevant) that {{etyl}} is currently being pulled from use, the information it displays in this instance is nonsense, to refer to an Indo-European language as "a Proto-Indo-European language". Your recent edit to the page should thus be reverted. 23:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me! I've considered it and I accept your explanation – I've reverted back to your version. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


Due to the amount of vandalism that's been happening there lately, I request that you (or another admin) semi-protects the page. Thanks! PseudoSkull (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull, Yes check.svg Done --Robbie SWE (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

Robbie SWE, I have something to ask You. Just for communication (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm user Kubura from I've created this account solely for the communication with the admins. Recently I've seen that a template was redirected (template user hr) so it was giving the wrong information about Croatian speakers that expressed on their userpages their mother tongue as Croatian, not as Serbo-Croatian (as redirect did). Therefore I restored to previous version.
Also, I would like You to unblock me. Currently I'm permanently blocked on this project because of an user that had something personal with me. As You see in my block log, Neskaya unblocked me, but than the admin, whose personal grudges against me rule his behaviour, reblocked me. Ruakh again unblocked me, than the same reblocker. I simply want to be unblocked. I do not intend to participate anymore on this project, and especially I do not to engage in some kind of edit war. Can You do that for me, please? Just for communication (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is my confirmation that I am user Kubura.[13] Just for communication (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no can do. If you want to be unblocked you should present your case to the entire community. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, two admins unblocked me; does that tell You something? Only one and that's the one with personal grudge who (re)blocked me. It's almost eight years of the block. Long enough. Just for communication (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't tell me anything. Follow protocol or take you grievances somewhere else. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the way, I do not know Your protocols, so I contacted the admin for the info. Also, when unblocking me, Ruakh mentioned also user Robert (Robert Ullmann). That's three against one. On the other hand, the blocker hasn't asked the community for the opinion (strangely, he blocked me for the same thing he strongly advocated few years before that, and then he suddenly had strange shift of attitude to the other polarity). Feel free to check my edits. No graffiti, no vandalisms. Anyway, what's the protocol? Where should I ask my unblock? I thought that a talk with the admin would be enough. Just for communication (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Try adding {{unblock|}} to your old account, alternatively, create a request in the Beer Parlour. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. BTW, I am not able to post a message to Atitarev, the page is semi-protected. He reverted this template to this version [14] which gives incorrect info about users' expression of language; that change affects about 17 users.
I do not declare my mother tongue as so-called Serbo-Croatian and I don't want that someone imposes me the look of my userpage (telling to a Croat that he/she speaks "Serbo-Croatian" is a heavy ethnic insult).Just for communication (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not addressing the issue here, but at the Beer Parlour. Regarding you block, I'm afraid I can't help you – Ivan Štambuk's initial assessment was sound and you have not provided any evidence that could sway me to reconsider. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


FYI: done. Go take a look. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hekaheka, looks great! Thank you for all your help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Let him waste his time vandalizing my talk page. That's less time spent vandalizing actual entries. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You could protect it from IP's editing. DTLHS (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I think it's better not to, for the reason I just said above. --WikiTiki89 18:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you, I just feel that you don't deserve that crap on your talk page but I see your point. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi! Could you create an entry for this? I noticed it through w:Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss (it occurs in a couple thousand Wikipedia articles, and appears to be a valid Romanian word).
Btw, I notice there's an accent mark on the headword line, but not in the pagetitle, of literatură. Should that mark be automatically stripped from (all) Romanian links the way macrons are stripped from Latin? It's currently not: literatúră produces a redlink to literatúră.
- -sche (discuss) 23:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@-sche, it's Yes check.svg Done. I added adjective forms as well. Accents are not used in Romanian (unless we're talking about direct loans, from say French) so I don't see the point in having a headword line in Romanian entries. I guess the only reason why someone added it in the first place was to show where the word is stressed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of good edits[edit]

In certain extreme cases of prolific, stubborn and persistent IP editors, I will revert or delete every edit that has no interfering edits by others. The reason for this is to remove the incentive for harder-to-patrol edits in specialized subjects or languages, and, more importantly, to discourage the editors by leaving them with very little to show for their efforts. That means sometimes getting rid of good edits, but it works out better for the dictionary in the long run because it reduces the load on patrollers and (eventually) gets rid of a prolific source of bad edits that might slip through.

All of these are easily detected by geolocating on the IPs. I've done this for a Sky UK IP who edits Japanese and deity/magic-related subjects, Pass a Method, who geolocates to TalkTalk/Tiscali/Carphone Warehouse IPs in northeast London & south Essex, a Greek IP who makes up terms/definitions in physics and philosophy, briefly for that Finnish IP who was flooding the etymologies recently with bad guesswork, a Thai IP who adds bad templates and labels to non-Thai entries, and with Gfarnab, who's been using anonymous proxies since I blocked their home IP.

All but the last two have mostly gone away: they'll come back intermittently to see what they can get away with, but not with the huge floods of garbage they used to burden us with. The Thai one is problematic because they've never used the same IP for very long and it's hard to tell if they even know they've been blocked. Gfarnab is going to take a while: they're obsessive, they take this very personally, and have an inflated view of their abilities that's quite resistant to obvious evidence of their failures.

At any rate, I just wanted to let you know that reverting good edits in those specific cases isn't due to overlooking something on my part, but intentional and part of a strategy. I won't be upset if you don't want to go along with it- it only becomes an issue very rarely, and I don't want to interfere with the important work you do. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand completely! I figured you had a reason and it sure makes sense. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:English given names[edit]

I believe Dana is actually a female given name derived from Daniel? (sense 3) - Amgine/ t·e 18:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was listed as a nickname for Daniel. Feel free to add it on a separate line if you want to. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I thought they were derivatives, not nicknames. - Amgine/ t·e 00:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edit[edit]

Hi. How are you? Just noticed this edit and feel that the info in it did not need reverting.

Changes ← Go to previous editGo to next edit → Appendix:Glossary of British military slang and expressions 213 BYTES REMOVED, 6 MONTHS AGO m Reverted edits by If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.

slang for genuine "Whats the gen?" Whats the true gossip?
Green Slime
Army, military intelligence personnel
grow bag
(RAF) Slang term for Aircrew SNCO on account of being made a SNCO purely due to their job. All aircrew due to their being green on the outside (flying suits)and full of sh1t



(RAF) Married airmen/women living in quarters. Before the Military Salary was introduced in the early 1970s,married personnel were paid on Scale E rates, so scalies/scaley.

Scaley Brat

(RAF) Airmen's/Women's offspring Thank Robbie SWE ADMINISTRATORS

The info in red, on the edit summery page, is correct and i dont tjink it needed remverting.

Many thanks for your help. Discostu362 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Discostu362! Thank you for contacting me! Here are my comments to the edits you mentioned above:
  • gen - the slang sense is not strictly military in nature and stands out amongst the other terms
  • Green Slime - edits by the same anon
  • grow bag - libelous; "the full of sh1t" remark prompted me to revert every edit by this user
  • God - ? doesn't give an acutal definition
  • Scaley - in hindsight, seems fine
  • Scaley Brat - also fine
Unfortunately this appendix in prone to vandalism, so it is at times hard to decipher what is correct and what isn't. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete 53,045?[edit]

it is a good page and a true number. Why did you dlete it? —This unsigned comment was added by 74A (talkcontribs).

Please check your talk page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

jockey strap[edit]

Why did you change my definition of Occy strap.

See here:

They are called Octopus Straps, they are not Jockey straps. Jockey strap originated from people mishearing Occy Strap and confusing it with Jock strap. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I think we are dealing with two different terms here – octopus straps are used to fasten cargo, while jockey strap is a dated form of the male athletic supporter jockstrap worn by men to support their genitals. If you have any sources that confirm your statement, I am willing to take a second look. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You will find many people do incorrectly refer to Occy straps as jockey straps, hence my reason for editing. Perhaps you should put in a section 'not to be confused with Occy strap'? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Definitely, I'll take that into consideration and see what I can do. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of flispy[edit]

The term flispy was not make up by me, but the the food joint Sonic. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who made it up: if it's not used by actual people to convey meaning, we don't include it. I see no evidence of anything beyond Sonic and people mentioning Sonic. See our Criteria for inclusion. Also, our entries are case sensitive: unless people are using it in uppercase the only spelling would be flispy —This unsigned comment was added by Chuck Entz (talkcontribs).
Chuck Entz pretty much said it all really. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Robbie SWE - From EgoAmbulo[edit]

I just recently reviewed your annotations on the edits I have made, sorry for the annoyance and confusion, and I apologize for not talking to you sooner. Again, thank you for the feedback. But, I strongly disagree with a good amount of the judgments you have made on my edits and most definitely, I would be a fool to argue this claim without any logical proof. Although informal, I formulated logical principles of Latin verb descendants based on comparative evidence seen on the wiki and via primary source. Here's my proposition, it is logically impossible, for a descendant or derivative -->(derivative, for the case that a word is *borrowed* and not inherited through an inherited language) from Latin to exist in the form of a (Latin descended prefix) + (Latin descended verb) combination if that exact combination does not already exist via Latin.

A good example is our first discussion, when I claimed English arefy was a descendant of Latin arefacere. It is evident that that the word, in its combined form, could not exist in English without the influence of Middle French arefier, and by principle, the combined verb must have descended from Middle French arefier which as well, is inherited from Latin arefacere.

That would also explain why the word arefact (hypothetical word directly borrowed from Latin arefacio) does not exist, but the word arefy does exist. Apply this same principle to the English verb amplify, which is from French amplifier via Latin amplificō . It is not the same word as amplficate because that word is a doublet that directly derives from Latin amplificō. The etymologies of resign, assign and ensign as well support my proposition. There is a somewhat lengthy article , that helps my point, on the etymologies of compound verbs of Latin descent. Not many have viewed this article in the past 200 years so I would be very happy if you considered to take a moment of your to time to take a quick skim through the pages, also please start from page 472 because I find the last 20 pages of the book support my point instintively and you wont have to spend much time reading **if you decide to**.

--EgoAmbulo (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly EgoAmbulo, I don't care how many dusty sources you dig up to support your changes. The problem is that you create words that don't exist (see my recent changes) in languages you don't master and you keep on making newbie mistakes. My patience is wearing thin and I'm not the only one around here who's starting to get fed up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand that I'm being menacing in respect to the wiki, I apologize, I will stop doing that. I am familiar that I do not put out my sources immediately, I assume that they are easily enough to find due to how I encounter them. Although I make calculations based on related words, can only confirm the existence of réflorir as an alternative form of French reflorer (via Italian refiorare) through Old French and not borrowed from Italian. I'll back off from getting too excited with my edits, again I apologize. My only motivation is to one day make the lingua francas as mutually intelligible as possible.

--EgoAmbulo (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

EgoAmbulo, you've been blocked because your "calculations" have yet again shown that you lack linguistic rigour. Contributing in languages you don't master is precarious to say the least and the consequences are that you inadvertently end up making incorrect contributions. I do believe that you have good intentions, but the way you go about things just doesn't work. On another note, I'm truly worried that your mission statement "[…]to one day make the lingua francas as mutually intelligible as possible" is not only impossible, but also completely contradictory to Wiktionary's ambitions. Take this week to contemplate your participation. I'll be keeping a close eye on your contributions, so please take into account why I had to hit the brakes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Promotional material on bulldozer[edit]

Hello. I am asking that this edit on the bulldozer page be hidden from public view for "Promotional material." You dealt with this IP before back in May of this year, and although I can't see the edit, guessing by the size change and the tag, I am assuming it added the same link. The link points to an external website that allows users to buy a bulldozer. Inner Focus (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

SemperBlotto beat me to it :-) --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing[edit] (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) - Amgine/ t·e 19:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ducket is a valid British English word used in railway terminology[edit]

I see you have deleted my definition of 'ducket', my first ever edit ! (My dynamic IP was 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:F092:AF08:53DE:CFB9). Ducket is a valid, if obscure British English word, used both by model railway enthusiasts and at least one railway company.

The web page discusses if it is a term used exclusivly by model railway enthusiasts. Today I have added to the page with a link to a quotation from an official LNER report which, according the poster used the word ducket.


The English Wikipedia page uses the plural form of the word, 'duckets'. If you look at the photograph at the top right of this page (of a British Railways "standard" brake van) you will see one of the duckets projecting out from the body of the vehicle.

The English Wikipedia page also uses the word.

The LNER Encyclopedia uses the word at and shows a photograph of a 'Departmental 6 wheeler', in which one of the side duckets is visible.

I have found a document at the National Railway Museum (the premier railway museum in the UK, known for its research) which uses the term.


Hornby, one of the Uk's long established model railway equipment manufacturers also uses the word.


Another railway museum, the Vintage Carriages Trust: Museum Of Rail Travel uses the word on their web site.


The above uses the spelling 'duckett' rather than the more common (if obscure) spelling with a single 't'. A ducket is also visible in the photo on the above page.

If I was to re-enter a definition of 'ducket' I would write something like, 'A side window on a railway wagon or carriage, typically known as a brake van, which projects out from the main main body of the vehicle like an oriel window, giving the train guard a view along the entire length of the train'.

Can you please restore my edit or use something like the definition I have given above.


2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:B169:2D9D:7E5F:F6D5 00:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it was the validity of the definition (though none of the examples you gave here would count for our Criteria for inclusion), but the fact that it was missing pretty much everything else. Please read our Entry layout page. Although we don't often have time to give a good explanation anyway, dynamic IPs mean we would have no way to get the explanation to you: most ISPs allocate 64 bits of IPv6 per user, which means in your case we would have to choose between 1.84467440737096x10^19 talk pages that we could post the message to. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


The word antarākathā is in the language Pali, not some language 'Noun'. The change from Noun to Pali for the level 2 heading was correct, and should not have been undone. RichardW57 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I re-reverted it. As a word of explanation, we get tons of vandalism where someone who speaks a non-English language changes various headers to the name of their own language. It's a pointless cliché that wasn't the slightest bit funny or clever the first (or thousandth) time and is repeated by someone different almost every day- thinking, I'm sure, that it's something brilliant that nobody ever thought of. Knowing how much patrolling of new edits Robbie does, I can understand how this kind of thing might happen every once in a while. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for the erroneous revert, I thought the change was made further down the page. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


Please go to ro:wikt:Special:Drepturi_utilizator and give it to yourself.

Ludwig Zamenhof[edit]

... the founder of Esperanto had Yiddish as his first language. Now why would anyone go to great lengths to erase Yiddish etymologies from dozens of pages? I can think of one major reason, do I need to spell it out?

Yiddish, like English, takes influence from a number of languages - mainly German, Slavic and Hebrew. Zamenhof was far more competent in Yiddish than German, and in certain cases the word form and/or definition is far closer to Zamenhof's native language than German. —This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:140e:f303:1:1:75f1:ffc6 (talk).

Firstly, anon, you're taking the cowardly route of trying to accuse Robbie of antisemitism without outright saying it. I don't take kindly to that (and luckily you can't do it to me, seeing as I'm a Jew who speaks Yiddish). Now, to the point at hand, there are indeed some Esperanto vocabulary items best explained as derivations from Yiddish (e.g. superjaro), but for the most part, scholars acknowledge that Zamenhof took pains to make Esperanto "international" in nature, and avoid anything too particularly Jewish. For words where the German and Yiddish are equally good matches, there is little point to invoking the Yiddish when there is no specific evidence to support it. In general, we try to ground our etymologies in scholarly sources, and when those are lacking, we find the most parsimonious explanation that is in keeping with what is known about the language's history, which in the case of a constructed language is a great deal. Speculation based merely on the fact that Zamenhof was a native Yiddish speaker is simply insufficient for our purposes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd say it is a pretty sufficient reason to include it. Klingon, for all its alien design, reflects the fact its creators were English speakers, and that its main designer was an American (through the use of structures found in languages of the Pacific North West). While there are one or two injokes (ghoti for fish etc), the language consciously attempts to be divergent from its US English milieu, yet still manages to incorporate various anglicisms and Americanisms.
The Yiddish influence on Esperanto has been written about by people far more articulate than me. It is clear that Esperanto is mostly based on Romance languages (unlike Yiddish), but that both languages contain a lot of internationally recognised vocabulary. Esperanto is most definitely a European language in its formation and owes its origins to the Baltic region. (I detect a Lithuanian influence on its design as well, but know little about that language)

Zamenhof would have been inevitably biased by his background, and used some unscientific methods. I personally don't think Esperanto is as well constructed as Interlingua, but it is far more successful as a cultural entity. —This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:140e:f303:1:1:75f1:ffc6 (talk).

Wow! Truly wow. I've been called a lot of things on the Internet, but congrats dear anon, anti-Semite is definitely a first. I assure you that this is far from the truth – if you knew anything about me or my family, you'd apologise. As I said on your (first) talk page, provide us with proof and I'd be more than happy to revert back to your changes. If you don't, stop wasting mine and everybody else's time. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Languages such as Modern Hebrew and Esperanto both have Yiddish influence because Ben Yehuda and Zamenhof were native speakers of that language, so it is natural that they would have unconscious influences from that direction. (Many later speakers of neo-Hebrew have from Yiddish, Arabic and Slavic speaking backgrounds, all of which have played an influence, despite attempts by revivalists to recreate the ancient form.)

In the same way, the Englishes of New York and London has had Yiddish influence because large numbers of Ashkenazi settled in each city. In both cases, people of a non-Jewish background use some of these Yiddish words and constructions without even knowing it, because they are so naturalised. It's not something that has even been done deliberately.

In the case of Esperanto, Zamenhof tried to source a common European vocabulary but Yiddish would have been the language of his formation and home, and the one I suspect he probably thought in when constructing early Esperanto. Yiddish was probably one of his main inspirations in the first place, as it crossed international borders, and had a bit of a magpie approach to vocabulary (as English does).

Zamenhof went to pains later to play down his Jewish background, but there are still Yiddish terms and influences. Edzino is one of the more blatant ones. In that case he actually backtracked and tried to give it a non-Yiddish etymology. But where Germanic vocabulary is concerned, there would be inevitable Yiddish influence. On some of the grammar too although that is more complex.

As for the anti-Semitism thing, it looked from here as if I am being suspected of it. I went to all the trouble of adding this content and then you delete it all for no good reason. The key point here is that Esperanto was founded by a speaker of Yiddish just as Volapük was founded by a German speaker. And that is nothing to be ashamed of. Many modern conlangs have English influences that their creators aren't aware of or have tried to retrofit. —This unsigned comment was added by 2a01:4c8:140e:f303:1:1:75f1:ffc6 (talk).

And still you have failed to provide any source confirming your "hunch", although you claim that it "[...]has been written about by people far more articulate than me". This is not serious linguistics in any shape or form and has no place here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Mate, it's not a "hunch". You're just airing your own personal opinion, which has little to do with the facts of the matter. But since you have some power-status within this website, your word is supposed to be more authoritative than mine.
But since you ask Biro's Weak Interactions Yiddish influence in Hungarian, Esperanto and Modern Hebrew mentions at least three of the words that I have mentioned. Other sources will mention more. So no it's not my "hunch" as you so patronisingly put it. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not your mate and my "power-status" (if it at all exists, believe it or not, we do have checks and balances around here) has absolutely nothing to do with me reverting your edits. I'm convinced that my fellow colleagues would've done the same, because we have standards that have to be met. Read this, follow it and quit airing your bias about me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)